An investigation of interruption in courtroom discourse

Abstract In this research project, we introduce an interdisciplinary study of language and the law—forensic linguistics. In the field of forensic linguistics, the topic of discourse probably receives the most study. The discourse phenomenon we investigated is interruption, commonly regarded as a display of power and control. Our study concentrated on observing the distributions and functions of interruption that take place in criminal courtroom discourse. Given the unique features in criminal courtroom discourse, such as the highly institutionalized nature, the strong goal orientation, the unique question–answer interaction pattern, its rigid procedure and the high stakes for the defendants, the interruption phenomenon greatly deviates away from that in other settings. For our observation, we collected data from the trial proceedings of criminal courts. The main concern is to determine whether the defendants’ right to speak and to be heard is respected by the other participants in the courtroom. Too much interruption may prevent the defendants from explaining themselves, thus infringing on their legal rights. Overall, judges and prosecutors interrupt considerably more frequently than defense lawyers and defendants. The asymmetry in treatment towards the participants in court trials can be censorable. In addition, we found that time pressure prevented judges from giving participants sufficient time to express themselves.